You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

rocurley comments on Utilitarianism Subreddit - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Tuxedage 31 July 2012 06:23AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (8)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: rocurley 31 July 2012 04:42:26PM 2 points [-]

Did the post change? I don't see any mention of CEV.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 31 July 2012 05:29:14PM *  5 points [-]

I think that paper-machine is suggesting that utilitarianism isn't in fact a common topic here because (paper-machine alleges) many LessWrongers believe that CEV is the correct form of ethics and CEV is not a form of utilitarianism.

I don't think that CEV is commonly held on LessWrong to be the correct ethics, especially since it was originally introduced as a way to build an FAI, and not as a form of ethics at all. However, I might well hold CEV up as having the right kind of idea (combining preferences while allowing for change in beliefs). It isn't well specified enough to be a morallity.

As peter_hurford says, it is pretty close to preference utilitarianism.

EDIT: Wrong on all counts.

Comment author: [deleted] 31 July 2012 11:02:03PM 3 points [-]

The sidebar of /r/utilitarianism mentions CEV as a kind of utilitarianism.

Oscar_Cunningham is more or less incorrect in his guesses about me. I didn't allege that many LWers believe in CEV, I don't believe CEV is the correct form of ethics, and I didn't say anything about whether or not utilitarianism is a common topic on LW.

I don't even know if CEV is a kind of utilitarianism or not -- that's why I asked.

Comment author: Lightwave 01 August 2012 07:57:12AM *  1 point [-]

CEV is more of an algorithm that is supposed to produce the correct ethics. I guess some people here would argue that the product will necessarily be a consequentialist form of ethics.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 August 2012 09:01:09AM 0 points [-]

I don't think there's much use in distinguishing CEV from its results, as far as the "popular" usage of the term goes. Certainly the sidebar isn't using it in this sense.

I have yet to see an argument that CEV (or whatever CEV produces if you like) will be consequentialist; indeed, sometimes I have seen people argue that CEV will value certain abstract things almost as if they were virtues, e.g., fun.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 31 July 2012 11:21:43PM 1 point [-]

Oh, okay.